↓ Skip to main content

Causality Assessment in Pharmacovigilance: Still a Challenge

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Safety, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
33 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
Title
Causality Assessment in Pharmacovigilance: Still a Challenge
Published in
Drug Safety, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40264-017-0509-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

I. Ralph Edwards

Abstract

Causality in pharmacovigilance is a difficult and time consuming exercise. This paper presents the challenges in determining causation by drug therapy. The first is that causation is complex and needs to be viewed from the context of the patient treated, rather than the drug product. Multiple causal vectors should be considered if we are to tackle the many issues involved in, for example, medication error and the many other factors that lead to bad outcomes from therapy, including failure to recognise known risk factors. The aim of pharmacovigilance is not only a bureaucratic exercise in public health norms, but is mainly concerned with small minorities of statistical outliers-and even individuals-whose experiences from harms may together form messages about causation that will prevent further at-risk patients from exposure, or at least assist with earlier recognition of drug-related harm and better management of such harm. This requires more time, more data, more analysis and more patient and clinical involvement in reporting useful clinical detail. The paradigm shift back towards gathering more case data relating to possible causation can be selective and would not be just retrogressive, nor necessarily too costly. Greater transparency of hypotheses and availability of anonymised case data will enrol more expertise into evaluations and hypothesis testing, and the provision of more complete and useful information should reduce clinical burdens from bad patient outcomes as well as their overall costs to society.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 24%
Student > Master 14 17%
Student > Postgraduate 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Researcher 6 7%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 14 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 26 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 17 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 June 2019.
All research outputs
#1,419,193
of 23,342,092 outputs
Outputs from Drug Safety
#128
of 1,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,897
of 311,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Safety
#2
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,092 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,717 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,640 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.